12 results on '"Ata, Baris"'
Search Results
2. Thrombophilia and assisted reproduction technology—any detrimental impact or unnecessary overuse?
- Author
-
Ata, Baris and Urman, Bulent
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. SARS-CoV-2, fertility and assisted reproduction.
- Author
-
Ata, Baris, Vermeulen, Nathalie, Mocanu, Edgar, Gianaroli, Luca, Lundin, Kersti, Rautakallio-Hokkanen, Satu, Tapanainen, Juha S, and Veiga, Anna
- Subjects
- *
REPRODUCTIVE technology , *MEDICAL personnel , *HUMAN reproductive technology , *SARS-CoV-2 , *SEXUALLY transmitted diseases , *FERTILITY clinics , *MAYER-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome , *FLUID intelligence - Abstract
Background: In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the access to and provision of ART treatments. Gradually, knowledge of the virus and its transmission has become available, allowing ART activities to resume. Still, questions on the impact of the virus on human gametes and fertility remain.Objective and Rationale: This article summarizes published data, aiming to clarify the impact of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease on human fertility and assisted reproduction, as well as the impact of vaccination, and from this, provide answers to questions that are relevant for people contemplating pregnancy and for health care professionals.Search Methods: PUBMED/MEDLINE and the WHO COVID-19 database were searched from inception to 5 October 2022 with search terms focusing on 'SARS-CoV-2' and gametes, embryos, reproductive function, fertility and ART. Non-English studies and papers published prior to 2020 were excluded, as well as reviews and non-peer reviewed publications. Full papers were assessed for relevance and quality, where feasible.Outcomes: From the 148 papers included, the following observations were made. The SARS-CoV-2-binding proteins, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and type II transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2), are expressed in the testis, but co-expression remains to be proven. There is some evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the ejaculate of COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but not in those with mild/moderate disease. SARS-CoV-2 infection can impair spermatogenesis, but this seems to resolve after one spermatogenic cycle. Testosterone levels seem to be lower during and after COVID-19, but long-term data are lacking; disease severity may be associated with testosterone levels. COVID-19 cannot be considered a sexually transmitted disease. There is no co-expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the myometrium, uterus, ovaries or fallopian tubes. Oocytes seem to have the receptors and protease machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, viral RNA in oocytes has not been detected so far. Women contemplating pregnancy following COVID-19 may benefit from screening for thyroid dysfunction. There is a possible (transient) impact of COVID-19 on menstrual patterns. Embryos, and particularly late blastocysts, seem to have the machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most studies have not reported a significant impact of COVID-19 on ovarian reserve, ovarian function or follicular fluid parameters. Previous asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in females does not seem to negatively affect laboratory and clinical outcomes of ART. There are no data on the minimum required interval, if any, between COVID-19 recovery and ART. There is no evidence of a negative effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on semen parameters or spermatogenesis, ovarian function, ovarian reserve or folliculogenesis. A transient effect on the menstrual cycle has been documented. Despite concerns, cross reactivity between anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies and Syncytin-1, an essential protein in human implantation, is absent. There is no influence of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on patients' performance during their immediate subsequent ART cycle. Pregnancy rates post-vaccination are similar to those in unvaccinated patients.Wider Implications: This review highlights existing knowledge on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 on fertility and assisted reproduction, but also identifies gaps and offers suggestions for future research. The knowledge presented should help to provide evidence-based advice for practitioners and couples contemplating pregnancy alike, facilitating informed decision-making in an environment of significant emotional turmoil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Outcomes of a GnRH Agonist Trigger Following a GnRH Antagonist or Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Cycle.
- Author
-
Kalafat, Erkan, Turkgeldi, Engin, Yıldız, Sule, Dizdar, Merve, Keles, Ipek, and Ata, Baris
- Subjects
INDUCED ovulation ,MENSTRUAL cycle ,FROZEN human embryos ,GONADOTROPIN releasing hormone ,OVARIAN reserve ,OVARIES - Abstract
A suggested explanation for the pituitary-suppressive effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation cycles (PPOS) is pituitary luteinizing hormone (LH) depletion with progestin exposure during the follicular phase. The GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger releases endogenous LH from the pituitary, and if the LH depletion theory is correct, the response to the agonist trigger would be dampened in PPOS cycles. In this study, we compared the performance of the GnRHa trigger after PPOS and GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation cycles. All women who underwent ovarian stimulation with the GnRH antagonist or flexible PPOS (fPPOS) and received a GnRH agonist trigger were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included number of metaphase-II (MII) oocytes retrieved per cycle, rates of empty follicle syndrome, maturation, fertilization, blastulation, and cumulative clinical pregnancy per stimulation cycle. During the screening period, there were 166 antagonists and 58 fPPOS cycles triggered with a GnRH agonist. Groups were matched for potential confounders using propensity score matching. Progestin-downregulated cycles had 19% high mature oocyte yield (median: 14 vs. 19 MII oocytes, P = 0.03). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy or live birth rates were estimated after matching for transferred embryo count, and rates were similar between GnRH antagonist and fPPOS group (57.0% vs. 62.1%, P = 0.68). However, the number of remaining blastocysts was higher in the fPPOS group (median: 5.0 vs. 6.0, P < 0.001). LH levels were higher in fPPOS cycles compared to GnRH antagonist cycles up to the trigger day (P < 0.001). After the GnRHa trigger, fPPOS cycles were associated with a steeper LH surge compared with antagonist cycles (P = 0.02). Higher endogenous gonadotropin levels through the stimulation period and an LH surge of higher magnitude following a GnRHa trigger suggest a milder pituitary suppression by fPPOS, which needs to be confirmed in larger samples. It appears that progestins do not deplete pituitary LH reserves and a GnRHa trigger is usable after PPOS in women with high ovarian reserve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. A picture of medically assisted reproduction activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe
- Author
-
Vermeulen, Nathalie, Hambartsoumian, Eduard, Nouri, Kazem, Ebner, Thomas, Wyns, Christine, Verheyen, Greta, Petrovskaya, Elena, Vujnic, Sasha, Sibincic, Sanja, Nikolov, Gueorgui, Andreeva, Petya, Baldani, Dinka, Stanic, Patrik, Fasouliotis, Sozos, Antoniadou, Christiana, Agathangelou, Anna, Malenovská, Alice, Rezabek, Karel, Bentin-Ley, Ursula, Grøndahl, Marie Louise, Pinborg, Anja, Morin-Papunen, Laure, Mäkinen, Sirpa, Boyer, Pierre, Rongieres, Catherine, de Mouzon, Jacques, Nogueira, Daniela, Barbakadze, Tamar, Chkonia, Lika, Kupka, Markus, Nordhoff, Verena, Strowitzki, Thomas, Tarlatzis, Basil, Kovacs, Peter, Szabolcs, Mátyás, Björgvinsson, Hilmar, Wingfield, Mary, Leyden, Joyce, Gennarelli, Gianluca, De Santis, Lucia, Lokshin, V N, Magomedova, Valerija, Baušytė, Raminta, Masliukaitė, Ieva, Schilling, Caroline, Forges, Thierry, Petanovski, Zoran, Sotirovska, Valentina, Agius, Jean Calleja, Simic, Tatjana Motrenko, Smeenk, Jesper M J, de Sousa Lopes, S M Chuva, Nap, Annemiek, Romundstad, Liv Bente, Janicka, Anna, Spaczynski, Robert, Sousa Ramos, Ana Luisa, Doria Reis, Isabel, Manolea, Corina, Dascalescu, Monica, Rugescu, Ioana, Kodyleva, Tatyana, Nikitin, Sergei, Zakharova, Elena, Šurlan, Lela, Stimpfel, Martin, Reljič, Milan, Maršík, Ladislav, Llácer, Joaquin, Domínguez Hernández, Francisco, Vidal, Carmina, Wånggren, Kjell, Streuli, Isabelle, Sterthaus, Oliver, Yarali, Hakan, Sokmensuer, Lale Karakoc, Gryshchenko, Mykola, Gontar, Julia, Bolton, Virginia, Chetty, Maya, Mathur, Raj, Ata, Baris, Gianaroli, Luca, Lundin, Kersti, Mocanu, Edgar, Rautakallio-Hokkanen, Satu, Tapanainen, Juha S, Veiga, Anna, Ata, Mustafa Barış (ORCID 0000-0003-1106-3747 & YÖK ID 182910), ESHRE COVID-19 Working Group, Vermeulen, Nathalie, Gianaroli, Luca, Lundin, Kersti, Mocanu, Edgar, Rautakallio-Hokkanen, Satu, Tapanainen, Juha S., Veiga, Anna, School of Medicine, HUS Gynecology and Obstetrics, Reproductive Disease Modeling, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinicum, and University of Helsinki
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Reproduction (economics) ,ESHRE ,Medicine ,Infectious diseases ,COVID-19 pandemic ,Assisted reproduction ,SARS-CoV-2 ,Infertility ,Access to services ,ART ,Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 ,Coronavirus disease 2019 ,03 medical and health sciences ,Technical support ,coronavirus disease 2019 ,COVID-19 (Disease) ,0302 clinical medicine ,3123 Gynaecology and paediatrics ,Political science ,Epidemiology ,Pandemic ,medicine ,Fertility preservation ,Duration (project management) ,030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine ,Data collection ,Social distance ,assisted reproduction ,COVID-19 ,access to services ,3. Good health ,Europe ,Reproducció humana assistida ,030104 developmental biology ,Family medicine ,Human reproductive technology ,Europa ,infertility ,severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 - Abstract
Study question: how did coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020)? Summary answer: MAR services, and hence treatments for infertile couples, were stopped in most European countries for a mean of 7 weeks. What is known already: with the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, non-urgent medical care was reduced by local authorities to preserve health resources and maintain social distancing. Furthermore, ESHRE and other societies recommended to postpone ART pregnancies as of 14 March 2020. Study design size duration: a structured questionnaire was distributed in April among the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives, followed by further information collection through email. Participants/materials setting methods: the information was collected through the questionnaire and afterwards summarised and aligned with data from the European Centre for Disease Control on the number of COVID-19 cases per country. Main results and the role of chance: by aligning the data for each country with respective epidemiological data, we show a large variation in the time and the phase in the epidemic in the curve when MAR/ART treatments were suspended and restarted. Similarly, the duration of interruption varied. Fertility preservation treatments and patient supportive care for patients remained available during the pandemic. Large scale data: N/A. Limitations reasons for caution: data collection was prone to misinterpretation of the questions and replies, and required further follow-up to check the accuracy. Some representatives reported that they, themselves, were not always aware of the situation throughout the country or reported difficulties with providing single generalised replies, for instance when there were regional differences within their country. Wider implications of the findings: the current article provides a basis for further research of the different strategies developed in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such conclusions will be invaluable for health authorities and healthcare professionals with respect to future similar situations. Study funding/competing interests: there was no funding for the study, apart from technical support from ESHRE. The authors had no COI to disclose., NA
- Published
- 2020
6. Progestins for pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for ART: a comprehensive and systematic review including meta-analyses.
- Author
-
Ata, Baris, Capuzzo, Martina, Turkgeldi, Engin, Yildiz, Sule, Marca, Antonio La, and La Marca, Antonio
- Subjects
- *
FROZEN human embryos , *INDUCED ovulation , *PROGESTATIONAL hormones , *POLYCYSTIC ovary syndrome , *PREGNANCY outcomes , *FERTILITY preservation - Abstract
Background: Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However, early endometrial exposure to progestin precludes a fresh embryo transfer (ET), but the advent of vitrification and increasing number of oocyte cryopreservation cycles allow more opportunities for using progestins for pituitary suppression.Objective and Rationale: This review summarizes: the mechanism of pituitary suppression by progestins; the effectiveness of progestins when compared with GnRH analogues and with each other; the effect of progestins on oocyte and embryo developmental potential and euploidy status; and the cost-effectiveness aspects of progestin primed stimulation. Future research priorities are also identified.Search Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, the Web of Science and Scopus were screened with a combination of keywords related to ART, progesterone, GnRH analogue and ovarian stimulation, in various combinations. The search period was from the date of inception of each database until 1 April 2020. Only full text papers published in English were included.Outcomes: Overall, the duration of stimulation, gonadotrophin consumption and oocyte yield were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, sensitivity analyses suggested that progestins were associated with significantly lower gonadotrophin consumption than the long GnRH agonist protocol (mean difference (MD) = -648, 95% CI = -746 to -550 IU) and significantly higher gonadotrophin consumption than the short GnRH agonist protocol (MD = 433, 95% CI = 311 to 555 IU). Overall, live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates per ET were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, when progestins were compared with GnRH agonists, sensitivity analyses including women with polycystic ovary syndrome (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.53) and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28) showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with progestins. However, the quality of evidence is low. Studies comparing medroxyprogesterone acetate, dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone suggested similar ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes. The euploidy status of embryos from progestin primed cycles was similar to that of embryos from conventional stimulation cycles. Available information is reassuring regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes with the use of progestins. Despite the lower cost of progestins than GnRH analogues, the mandatory cryopreservation of all embryos followed by a deferred transfer may increase cost per live birth with progestins as compared to an ART cycle culminating in a fresh ET.Wider Implications: Progestins can present an effective option for women who do not contemplate a fresh ET, e.g. fertility preservation, anticipated hyper responders, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte donors, double stimulation cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. A picture of medically assisted reproduction activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.
- Author
-
Group, The ESHRE COVID-19 Working, Vermeulen, Nathalie, Ata, Baris, Gianaroli, Luca, Lundin, Kersti, Mocanu, Edgar, Rautakallio-Hokkanen, Satu, Tapanainen, Juha S, and Veiga, Anna
- Subjects
COVID-19 pandemic ,REPRODUCTIVE technology - Abstract
STUDY QUESTION How did coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020)? SUMMARY ANSWER MAR services, and hence treatments for infertile couples, were stopped in most European countries for a mean of 7 weeks. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY With the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, non-urgent medical care was reduced by local authorities to preserve health resources and maintain social distancing. Furthermore, ESHRE and other societies recommended to postpone ART pregnancies as of 14 March 2020. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A structured questionnaire was distributed in April among the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives, followed by further information collection through email. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The information was collected through the questionnaire and afterwards summarised and aligned with data from the European Centre for Disease Control on the number of COVID-19 cases per country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE By aligning the data for each country with respective epidemiological data, we show a large variation in the time and the phase in the epidemic in the curve when MAR/ART treatments were suspended and restarted. Similarly, the duration of interruption varied. Fertility preservation treatments and patient supportive care for patients remained available during the pandemic. LARGE SCALE DATA N/A LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Data collection was prone to misinterpretation of the questions and replies, and required further follow-up to check the accuracy. Some representatives reported that they, themselves, were not always aware of the situation throughout the country or reported difficulties with providing single generalised replies, for instance when there were regional differences within their country. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The current article provides a basis for further research of the different strategies developed in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such conclusions will be invaluable for health authorities and healthcare professionals with respect to future similar situations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) There was no funding for the study, apart from technical support from ESHRE. The authors had no COI to disclose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Which is worse? Comparison of ART outcome between women with primary or recurrent endometriomas.
- Author
-
Ata, Baris, Mumusoglu, Sezcan, Aslan, Kiper, Seyhan, Ayse, Kasapoglu, Isıl, Avcı, Berrin, Urman, Bulent, Bozdag, Gurkan, Uncu, Gurkan, Kasapoglu, Isil, and Avci, Berrin
- Subjects
- *
ENDOMETRIOSIS , *INFERTILITY , *REPRODUCTIVE technology , *CHILDBIRTH , *OVARIAN reserve , *TREATMENT of endometriosis , *INFERTILITY treatment , *ACADEMIC medical centers , *BIRTH rate , *COMPARATIVE studies , *HUMAN reproductive technology , *LONGITUDINAL method , *RESEARCH methodology , *MEDICAL cooperation , *RESEARCH , *SURGICAL complications , *THERAPEUTICS , *DISEASE relapse , *LOGISTIC regression analysis , *EVALUATION research , *RELATIVE medical risk , *RETROSPECTIVE studies , *SEVERITY of illness index ,PREVENTION of surgical complications - Abstract
Study Question: Are live birth rates (LBR) different after ART cycles between women with primary or recurrent endometrioma?Summary Answer: Women with recurrent endometrioma have similar LBR as compared to patients with primary endometrioma.What Is Already Known: Recurrence rate can be as high as 29% after endometrioma excision. Prior studies on management of endometrioma before ART involve primary endometriomas. There is limited information regarding the prognosis of women with recurrent endometriomas.Study Design, Size, Duration: A multicenter retrospective cohort study, including 76 women with primary and 82 women with recurrent endometriomas treated at the participating centers over a 6-year period.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women with endometrioma who underwent ART at three academic ART centers. Couples with another indication for ART were excluded.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Female age, median number of prior failed ART cycles, proportion of patients with bilateral endometrioma (28 versus 28.9%), ovarian stimulation protocols, and total gonadotropin consumption were similar between the study groups. Numbers of metaphase two oocytes (5 versus 6), number of embryos transferred, and the proportion of patients undergoing blastocyst transfer were similar across the study groups. Clinical pregnancy rates (36.6 versus 34.2%, absolute difference 2.4%, 95% CI: -12.5 to 17.3%, P = 0.83) and LBR (35.4 versus 30.3%, absolute difference 5.1%, 95% CI: -9.5 to 19.7%, P = 0.51) per started cycle in recurrent and primary endometrioma were similar. Comparable success rates were also confirmed with logistic regression analysis (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-0.57, P = 2.3).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The retrospective design has inherent limitations. Some women with severely decreased ovarian reserve after primary endometrioma excision may not have pursued further treatment.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The management of endometrioma prior to ART is controversial but a different management strategy is not required for recurrent endometriomas. Since recurrent endometriomas do not have a worse impact on ART outcome than primary endometriomas, and repeat surgery has a higher risk for complications, conservative management without surgery can be justified.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No funding or competing interests to declare.Trial Registration Number: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Comparison of complication rates and pain scores after transvaginal ultrasound–guided oocyte pickup procedures for in vitro maturation and in vitro fertilization cycles.
- Author
-
Seyhan, Ayse, Ata, Baris, Son, Weon-Young, Dahan, Michael H., and Tan, Seang Lin
- Subjects
- *
FERTILIZATION in vitro , *TRANSVAGINAL ultrasonography , *RETROSPECTIVE studies , *DEVELOPMENTAL biology , *COHORT analysis , *PREGNANCY complications , *HEALTH outcome assessment , *UTERINE hemorrhage - Abstract
Objective: To compare complication rates and pain scores after oocyte pickup (OPU) in in vitro maturation (IVM) and IVF cycles. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University-affiliated ART center. Patient(s): One hundred eighty-eight IVM and 188 IVF OPUs. Intervention(s): IVM OPUs were done using a 19-gauge single-lumen needle, and IVF OPUs were done using a 17-gauge single- or 16-gauge double-lumen needles. Main Outcome Measure(s): Duration of OPU, complication rates, and pain scores during the OPU procedure. Result(s): IVM OPU took significantly more time than IVF OPU (22 vs. 15 minutes). Two women in the IVM and four in the IVF group experienced bleeding from the vaginal wall or ovary. None of them required hospitalization, transfusion, or an operative intervention. One patient in each group had pelvic infection. Severe post-OPU abdominal pain occurred in one patient in the IVM group and five patients in the IVF group. No differences were found between pain scores in the IVF and IVM groups (3.4 vs. 3.8). Conclusion(s): Although IVM OPU requires more punctures per ovary, it is well tolerated and does not seem to be associated with a higher complication rate than IVF OPU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Ultrasound automated volume calculation in reproduction and in pregnancy
- Author
-
Ata, Baris and Tulandi, Togas
- Subjects
- *
DIAGNOSTIC ultrasonic imaging , *HUMAN reproduction , *PREGNANCY , *HUMAN reproductive technology , *OVARIAN follicle , *HUMAN in vitro fertilization , *REPRODUCTIVE health - Abstract
Objective: To review studies assessing the application of ultrasound automated volume calculation in reproductive medicine.Design: We performed a literature search using the keywords "SonoAVC, sonography-based automated volume calculation, automated ultrasound, 3D ultrasound, antral follicle, follicle volume, follicle monitoring, follicle tracking, in vitro fertilization, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, embryo volume, embryonic volume, gestational sac, and fetal volume" and conducted the search in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Reference lists of identified reports were manually searched for other relevant publications.Result(s): Automated volume measurements are in very good agreement with actual volumes of the assessed structures or with other validated measurement methods. The technique seems to provide reliable and highly reproducible results under a variety of conditions. Automated measurements take less time than manual measurements.Conclusion(s): Ultrasound automated volume calculation is a promising new technology which is already used in daily practice especially for assisted reproduction. Improvements to the technology will undoubtedly render it more effective and increase its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. THE REVIEW OF COMPARED PROGESTINS TYPE AND DOSE UTILITY AGAINST THE PITUITARY SUPPRESSION DURING OVARIAN STIMULATION FOR ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
- Author
-
POLEXA, ALEXANDRU, CEKIC, SEBILE GULER, YILDIZ, SULE, TURKGELDI, ENGIN, and ATA, BARIS
- Subjects
- *
INDUCED ovulation , *REPRODUCTIVE technology , *PROGESTATIONAL hormones , *FROZEN human embryos , *PREGNANCY tests , *EMBRYO transfer - Abstract
We performed a literature review of studies comparing the effectiveness of progestins in preventing premature ovulation during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology (ART). Five randomized trials and cohort studies involving a total of 2404 women, which compared; i) two different progestins or ii) two different doses of the same progestin were included. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR) per woman. Secondary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy (LB/OP) per woman and per embryo transfer (ET), ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, positive pregnancy test, numbers of oocytes and metaphase-two oocytes, duration of stimulation and gonadotropin consumption. The primary outcome was not reported in most studies however there were no differences between progestins for secondary outcomes. All progestins seem to effectively prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. Low-quality evidence suggests that progestins can effectively prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Is elective single-embryo transfer a viable treatment policy in in vitro maturation cycles?
- Author
-
Hatırnaz, Safak, Hatırnaz, Ebru, Dahan, Michael H., Tan, Seang Lin, Ozer, Alev, Kanat-Pektas, Mine, and Ata, Baris
- Subjects
- *
POLYCYSTIC ovary syndrome , *EMBRYO transfer , *ELECTIVE surgery , *FERTILIZATION in vitro , *BIRTH rate , *HEALTH policy , *INFERTILITY treatment , *FERTILITY drugs , *COMPARATIVE studies , *FERTILITY , *HUMAN reproductive technology , *INFERTILITY , *RESEARCH methodology , *EVALUATION of medical care , *MEDICAL cooperation , *PREGNANCY , *RESEARCH , *PILOT projects , *EVALUATION research , *TREATMENT effectiveness , *RETROSPECTIVE studies , *DISEASE complications , *DIAGNOSIS , *THERAPEUTICS - Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical outcome of single-embryo transfer (SET) with double-embryo transfer (DET) in in vitro maturation (IVM) cycles performed in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and to determine which factors predict those outcomes.Design: A retrospective analysis.Setting: Private assisted reproduction center.Patient(s): One hundred and fifty-nine women with PCOS.Intervention(s): In vitro maturation with elective SET or DET conducted between September 2007 and May 2014.Main Outcome Measure(s): Live-birth rates.Result(s): Single-embryo transfer was performed in 83 patients (52.2%), and DET was performed in 76 patients (47.7%). When compared with the patients who had DET, the patients who had SET were statistically significantly younger (32.4 ± 3.5 vs. 24.1 ± 4.2 years) and had a shorter infertility duration (9.2 ± 4.5 vs. 4.4 ± 2.1 years), fewer previous ART cycles (<2 prior attempts, 39.5% vs. 6%; ≥2 prior attempts, 60.5% vs. 0), fewer collected oocytes (15.1 ± 4.6 vs. 12.6 ± 3.8), fewer metaphase II oocytes (9.0 ± 4.1 vs. 5.7 ± 2.9), fewer fertilized oocytes (8.2 ± 3.7 vs. 3.6 ± 2.3), and a higher implantation rate (27% vs. 47%). The SET and DET groups had similar embryo quality and similar clinical pregnancy (44.6% vs. 44.7%) and live-birth rates (34.9% vs. 34.2%). Twin pregnancy rates were statistically significantly higher in the DET compared with the SET groups (9.2% vs. 2.4%).Conclusion(s): In vitro maturation is a successful assisted reproduction technique that can be an alternative to conventional in vitro fertilization in women presenting with PCOS-related infertility. Our observations suggest that SET is a feasible option to prevent multiple pregnancies while maintaining the live-birth rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.